How can the government regulate criminal/unfair expression in social

media?
As of January 2016, the total population in the Philippines has reached over a hundred million, and
forty six percent of this population is active internet users. There's no surprise that almost Filipinos are
actively joining social media, not just connecting with friends and family but also for the purpose of
catching news, purchasing products and services, and even job searching.
Indeed, social media continues to change the way we live. Of the entire Philippine population, 47%
are active social media users and 40% are active mobile social users. The total number of mobile
subscription is 119.2 million; it's 117% of the total Philippine population. It should also be noted that
87% of adult population are mobile phone users. Facebook is the most active social media platform
with 26%, followed by Facebook Messenger with 23%, while Twitter and Instagram also tops the list
with 13% and 12%. Ages 20-29 years old are the most active users on Facebook.
(http://isupportworldwide.com/blog/archive/socialmediaphilippines/). The impact of Social Media such
as Facebook, Twitter, Linked In, You tube or Instagram varies from different people from different
country. In Communist countries like Iran and North Korea, Facebook and Twitter has been banned
for quitesome time as the citizens used this as tools to organized protest that turns to riot. Mostly,
social media in these countries is used by others as mechanisms to change peoples mind against the
government. They have 1.6 Billion users of social media around the globe. In the country, many are
using Facebook as means of communication with their families, friends, peers and groups. Others
are using this as tool of their business especially those engaged in a networking or in a small medium
enterprise. This is a question of Positive over Negative impact of Social media in a society as a result
of a technological change in the world. Facebook is the most censorious platforms. According to first
report of Online Censorship released in March 2016 , Online Censorships first report, released in
March 2016, stated: In the United States (where all of the companies generally reserve the right to
determine what content they will host, and they do not consider their policies to constitute censorship.
We challenge this assertion, and examine how their policies (and the enforcement thereof) may have
chilling effect on freedom of expression.
With the number of Social Media users, it is not surprising that social media-related crimes also rise.
According to a press release from the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP ACG), a
total of 1,211 cybercrime complaints were filed with them from 2013-2015. The top five complaints
received were online scams (366), online libel (240), online threats (129), identity theft (127), and
photo and video voyeurism (89). Incidents like this paved the way for the government topropose
Republic Act No. 10175, also known as Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which states An act
defining cybercrime, providing for the prevention, investigation, suppression and the imposition of
penalties therefor and for other purposes. The law primarily focused on defining cybercrime offenses,
the enforcement and implementation of the provisions therein, and the international cooperation for
transnational offenses. Published August 27, 2015 6:55pm. Retrieved on September 30, 2016 from
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/534597/scitech/technology/top-5-cybercrimes-complaints-inthe-philippines-according-to-pnp)
However, the promulgation of R.A. 10175 did not sit in well with various individuals and organizations.
While there was an evident necessity for such a law, the provisions and contents therein proved to be
quite controversial. As a result, numerous petitions were lodged in the Supreme Court seeking to
invalidate the provisions, if not, the entire law itself on the grounds of unconstitutionality. On record,
there were 15 petitions that were filed as follows:
1. Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335;
2. Biraogo v. National Bureau of Investigation, G.R. No. 203299;
3. Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203306;
4. Guingona III v. Executive Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203359;
5. Adonis v. The Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 203378;
6. Palatino v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. No. 203391;

7. Reyes v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 203407;

8. Maria v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 203440;
9. National Union of Journalist of the Philippines (NUJP) v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 203453;
10. Castillo v. Hon. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203454;
11. Cruz v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 203469;
12. Philippine Bar Association, Inc. v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 203501;
13. Colmenares v. Ochoa, Jr. , G.R. No. 203509;
14. National Press Club of the Philippines, Inc. v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203515; and
15. Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 203518.

The Petitioners principally challenged the constitutionality of the following cybercrime law provisions:
1. Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access;
2. Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference;
3. Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting;
4. Section 4(b)(3) on Identity Theft;
5. Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex;
6. Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography;
7. Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications;
8. Section 4(c)(4) on Libel;
9. Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the
10. Commission of Cybercrimes;
11. Section 6 on the Penalty of One Degree Higher;
12. Section 7 on the Prosecution under both the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and R.A. 10175;
13. Section 8 on Penalties;
14. Section 12 on Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data;
15. Section 13 on Preservation of Computer Data;
16. Section 14 on Disclosure of Computer Data;
17. Section 15 on Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data;
18. Section 17 on Destruction of Computer Data;
19. Section 19 on Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data;
20. Section 20 on Obstruction of Justice;
21. Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC); and

22. Section 26(a) on CICCs Powers and Functions.

A few petitioners also took it as an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the following related
Articles in the Revised Penal Code penalizing the crime of libel: Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362.
Surprisingly, it is observed that major publications and mass media seem to not have participated in
the case. Considering that they create online media content and do so through the use of the Internet
and via information and communications technology, they are one of the industries likely to be
affected by the Philippine Cybercrime law. The offense of online libel is but one of the potential source
for problems in their industry. In any case, these various petitions were consolidated and decided
upon by the high tribunal through the case entitled Disini v. Secretary of Justicewith the following
citation: G.R. No. 203335 dated 18 February 2014. (Constitutional Challenges to R.A. 10175 or the
Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Prevention Act of 2012. Jake Del Puerto. Retrieved on September
29, 2016 at http://cybercrimelaw.ph/90/constitutional-challenges-to-r-a-10175-or-the-philippinecybercrime-prevention-prevention-act-of-2012/)One contention is that people should urge the
government to make certain that the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 10175
should clearly set the limits of the human right and freedom, where freedom ends and responsibility
starts. The IRR should make sure that the new law will be just and humane and that citizens to be
reminded to think before clicking especially after the Philippines was regarded as the social media
capital of the world and how social networking sites stirs the social climate. (The Pros and Cons of
Cybercrime Law. Retrieved on September 29, 2016 at http://ra10175.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-prosand-cons-of-cybercrime-law.html)
In this regard, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10175 was signed
and launched on August 2015, close to 3 years after the law's enactment on Sept. 12, 2012. The
formulation of the IRR began in February 2014 after the Supreme Court (SC) upheld the
constitutionality of RA 10175, and after a series of consultations and meetings with stakeholders, and
industry partners from the business community, media, academe, ICT organizations, the legal
profession, NGOs, internet service providers, and various national government agencies. (Anti-Cyber
Crime Laws IRRs Signed After 3 years. Retrieved on September 29, 2016 at http://news.abscbn.com/nation/08/12/15/anti-cybercrime-laws-irr-signed-after-3-years)For the government to be able
to control unfair social media remarks, the Cybercrime Law must be implemented in such a way that
citizens will not feel their rights and freedom is being restricted. The governments desire to abolish
cybercrime is very admirable. Unfortunately, such online libel provision is simply a slap in the face to
every Filipino Internet user. Whats worse is that even if you only Liked or commented on such post
or statement online, this could be used against you too. The language of the law should not be vague
on who can be held responsible for electronic libel.
People are abusing rights on using social media by harming others physically, mentally or spiritually.
Exploitation of using social media is also very alarming; nudity, harassment and hate speech are
mostly example of how people used this medium in an appropriate way. Now if the above mentioned
are typically considered the horror side of the social media, we cannot deny that they are still good
side of it. The different social campaigns which focus in humanitarian action like those issues
concerning Health Awareness, Peace Advocacy and other International Affairs are the things we
considered a great advantage of Social Media as a tool for the development of a certain country and
its people. This time in a fast changing world where people are involved in action, social media plays
a vital role for the young people with range of benefits and opportunities to empower themselves in a
variety of ways. However, giving emphasis on the good side of social media, the negative side of both
censorship and abuse on using this tool is the most concerned of most people. It is becoming more
subjective than objective. The proper balance in the implementation of social media in every country
could lead to a much more positive effect both people, government and the community. Strict
monitoring also on what the social media is showing to a certain country could result a balance way of
living both on its government and image of a country. Every person must be responsible enough on
their action to protect not just themselves but their own family and countrymen as well. Some social
media, such as Facebook, already used a protocol and standards to maintain the interest of the
websites. They have some features already that constitute unallowable content of a certain post,
wherein the user can identify this and immediately report to administration for proper action. While
Facebook says it respect differences in opinions, the social network may remove certain kinds of
sensitive content or limit the audience that sees it in the interest of the websites diverse community.

There are some requirements or parameters on which the admin can distinguish whether the content
is obviously suspicious and can lead damage to people either emotionally, spiritually and mentally. It
is always a matter of an issue or debate, if social media is really considered as Freedom of
Expression, because everybody can use it, everybody can abuse it, everybody can be benefitted on it.
The so-called Censorship in Social Media really battling issues of every society today, it is the
endemic result brought about by New Technology of the Modern World.http://cmfr-phil.org/pressfreedom-protection/attacks-and-threats-against-the-media/facebook-takedown-social-mediacensorship/ and https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/05/social-media-censorship-problem/